Wow.. there are actually people in this thread justifying this sort of abuse, and thinking its acceptable 'because it worked'.
If you don't understand learning theory, please refrain from having children?
A punishment is something that reduces the frequency of the behaviour it immediately follows.
An aversive is something the subject finds unpleasant for whatever reason and wishes to avoid.
Forcing a child to eat cigarettes is only a punishment if it a/ immediately follows being discovered smoking, and b/reduces the frequency of that behaviour ie the child stops smoking.
If it doesn't work it wasn't actually a punishment, it was just a horrible thing, an aversive. If you repeatedly use aversives that don't work then that's just abusive.
However just because an aversive or punishment appears to work does not justify its use!
I could prevent your child from doing anything wrong ever again, by shooting them dead. It would work, but it wouldn't be acceptable now would it?
If your chosen punishment has unwanted side effects - for example, instead of stopping smoking the kid just hides to smoke, instead of stealing cigs, the kid starts to steal money to buy cigs, instead of stealing your ciggies they steal grandmas..... then it wasn't effective was it?
Punishments and particularly the use of aversives will almost always carry 'fall out' risk - kid might stop smoking, but also might never trust you again. Hurrah, kid stops smoking but leaves home at 16 never speaks to you again.
Most of the punishments I read about people using on here are wholly ineffective, highly likely to cause further problems and also likely to damage the relationship between parent and child.
Some of them aren't punishments at all, they are revenge. They are an adult lashing out at a child in a way most calculated to hurt them.
Btw, forcing a child to eat or smoke cigarettes is a great way to give the kid nicotine poisoning, and of COURSE we should talk about this stuff, otherwise how will the folk who think its ok ever discover it isn't?